Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

D&D consistently surprises me. I didn't realize there would be so many Confederate apologists here.

I refuse to believe that they're actually present in these numbers. Some of these people have to be fucking with us.

It's the contentious nature of the board. Make a 'George W. was a good president' thread and it will be filled with hate against the former commander in chief. Make a 'George W. was a bad president' and people will rally behind W. citing what he did about AIDS relief.

Sooo...if someone made a thread that was referred positively to the Confederacy, it'd fill with hate against the old South quicker.

0·

kaleeditySometimes science is more art than scienceRegistered Userregular

You know what would help with this? Not defending people flying the Confederate flag. But when it comes up in here, and a bunch of otherwise rational people from the South get all up in arms over it, saying "oh, it's okay, it doesn't mean what you think it means," when I know goddamn well it means what I think it means, it just perpetuates the stereotype that you're a bunch of racists, or, at the very least, apologists for a bunch of racists.

Well, part of this problem with the flag issue is the general attitude towards the South. Being Southern is an unprotected status. I'm not going to wax pity or anything, but the tendency for people and the media to portray the dirty dumb Southerner is and has always been a little unfair. I'm not really talking about discrimination against an individual because he's Southern, but there seems to be this assumed conclusion that the South and all the people in it are evil, racist, etc. Many people, Southern or otherwise, believe that human existence doesn't really work this way, that generally a region or country can't be all evil, but rather get influenced and tainted by a nasty political party or institution or religious sect or something. We don't seem to blame all of Germany for the Nazis anymore, but we still hold the South accountable for the Confederacy and Slavery and all that.

Now, all that is an indirect backdrop to the debates people get into, where they seek to argue that really the Civil War wasn't about slavery or really the Confederate flag isn't a bad thing. For many, such as myself when I used to argue from those points of view, what was really going on was that I had a general sense that somehow history and society was being unfair to the region I identify with, and I had a certain faith in that general sense, but not exactly sure where it applied specifically. So I was trying to take that general anxiety and slap it onto discussions of history and politics and such, and then, quite innocently, take it too far and try to argue beyond a sensible conclusion about the causes of the Civil War or the nature of the institution of slavery. In short: denial, but a somewhat understandable denial. I hold a viewpoint on those issues that is still more "moderate" than I believe common wisdom holds, but also more accepting of reality.

Well, part of this problem with the flag issue is the general attitude towards the South. Being Southern is an unprotected status. I'm not going to wax pity or anything, but the tendency for people and the media to portray the dirty dumb Southerner is and has always been a little unfair. I'm not really talking about discrimination against an individual because he's Southern, but there seems to be this assumed conclusion that the South and all the people in it are evil, racist, etc. Many people, Southern or otherwise, believe that human existence doesn't really work this way, that generally a region or country can't be all evil, but rather get influenced and tainted by a nasty political party or institution or religious sect or something. We don't seem to blame all of Germany for the Nazis anymore, but we still hold the South accountable for the Confederacy and Slavery and all that.

Now, all that is an indirect backdrop to the debates people get into, where they seek to argue that really the Civil War wasn't about slavery or really the Confederate flag isn't a bad thing. For many, such as myself when I used to argue from those points of view, what was really going on was that I had a general sense that somehow history and society was being unfair to the region I identify with, and I had a certain faith in that general sense, but not exactly sure where it applied specifically. So I was trying to take that general anxiety and slap it onto discussions of history and politics and such, and then, quite innocently, take it too far and try to argue beyond a sensible conclusion about the causes of the Civil War or the nature of the institution of slavery. In short: denial, but a somewhat understandable denial. I hold a viewpoint on those issues that is still more "moderate" than I believe common wisdom holds, but also more accepting of reality.

I think the difference is that the Germans, as a people, are pretty appalled by what happened during World War II, have apologized repeatedly and profusely, and don't try to deny that it was a horrible, terrible thing. No one there flies a Nazi flag as a symbol of memorial or anything like that; the only people flying them there are actual Neo-Nazis, who the vast majority of Germans thoroughly condemn.

The South, as a people, tend to make a lot of excuses for the Confederacy ("it wasn't about slavery" is really my favorite), romanticize it tremendously, and many Southerners continue to fly Confederate flags, while proclaiming the whole time that "it isn't racist" and "it doesn't mean what everybody thinks it means." Then, there's another group of non-flag-fliers who have decided that acting as apologists for those people is the best way to improve people's perception of the South, and I really don't know why.

0·

JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod

1. Sherman was awesome. If I could lead a march through the south, burning crops and killing livestock I would do so with a gusto. And I would bring party balloons.

2. Whether or not the Confederate flag represents slavery, racism or hillbillies, one thing it does represent is TREASON.

whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Now obviously, flying a flag doesn't count as treason. But it does say, I support Treason. I'd say we should put anyone who flies it on a watch list, tap their phones and waterboard the crap out of them.

You know what would help with this? Not defending people flying the Confederate flag. But when it comes up in here, and a bunch of otherwise rational people from the South get all up in arms over it, saying "oh, it's okay, it doesn't mean what you think it means," when I know goddamn well it means what I think it means, it just perpetuates the stereotype that you're a bunch of racists, or, at the very least, apologists for a bunch of racists.

So you're saying because you think it means something, that's what it means? And aren't stereotypes, by definition, not representative of the people they're applied to? If even historians, with their myriads of degrees, can't agree what the Civil War was primarily fought over, how can you unequivocally state it was fought over slavery, and the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery?

The South, as a people, tend to make a lot of excuses for the Confederacy ("it wasn't about slavery" is really my favorite), romanticize it tremendously, and many Southerners continue to fly Confederate flags, while proclaiming the whole time that "it isn't racist" and "it doesn't mean what everybody thinks it means." Then, there's another group of non-flag-fliers who have decided that acting as apologists for those people is the best way to improve people's perception of the South, and I really don't know why.

Yeah I guess it is quid pro quo to a great extent, but I am fairly certain that even without slavery or the Civil War ever existing, the stereotype would be the much the same.

You know what would help with this? Not defending people flying the Confederate flag. But when it comes up in here, and a bunch of otherwise rational people from the South get all up in arms over it, saying "oh, it's okay, it doesn't mean what you think it means," when I know goddamn well it means what I think it means, it just perpetuates the stereotype that you're a bunch of racists, or, at the very least, apologists for a bunch of racists.

So you're saying because you think it means something, that's what it means? And aren't stereotypes, by definition, not representative of the people they're applied to? If even historians, with their myriads of degrees, can't agree what the Civil War was primarily fought over, how can you unequivocally state it was fought over slavery, and the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery?

No, I'm saying that because that's what it means, that's what it means.

Fine, instead of "stereotype," pretend I used the word "generality." Happy?

And if you show me a historian who says that the Civil War wasn't fought primarily over slavery, I'll show you a man whose degree isn't worth the fucking paper it's printed on.

You know what would help with this? Not defending people flying the Confederate flag. But when it comes up in here, and a bunch of otherwise rational people from the South get all up in arms over it, saying "oh, it's okay, it doesn't mean what you think it means," when I know goddamn well it means what I think it means, it just perpetuates the stereotype that you're a bunch of racists, or, at the very least, apologists for a bunch of racists.

So you're saying because you think it means something, that's what it means? And aren't stereotypes, by definition, not representative of the people they're applied to? If even historians, with their myriads of degrees, can't agree what the Civil War was primarily fought over, how can you unequivocally state it was fought over slavery, and the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery?

No, I'm saying that because that's what it means, that's what it means.

Fine, instead of "stereotype," pretend I used the word "generality." Happy?

And if you show me a historian who says that the Civil War wasn't fought primarily over slavery, I'll show you a man whose degree isn't worth the fucking paper it's printed on.

Again, no, it doesn't, the same way the swastika doesn't mean Nazi Germany.

The South, as a people, tend to make a lot of excuses for the Confederacy ("it wasn't about slavery" is really my favorite), romanticize it tremendously, and many Southerners continue to fly Confederate flags, while proclaiming the whole time that "it isn't racist" and "it doesn't mean what everybody thinks it means." Then, there's another group of non-flag-fliers who have decided that acting as apologists for those people is the best way to improve people's perception of the South, and I really don't know why.

Yeah I guess it is quid pro quo to a great extent, but I am fairly certain that even without slavery or the Civil War ever existing, the stereotype would be the much the same.

Then again, if slavery had never existed as a practice on this continent the South would be a very, very different place than it is now. It would have developed along much different lines than it did due to slave labor.

You know what would help with this? Not defending people flying the Confederate flag. But when it comes up in here, and a bunch of otherwise rational people from the South get all up in arms over it, saying "oh, it's okay, it doesn't mean what you think it means," when I know goddamn well it means what I think it means, it just perpetuates the stereotype that you're a bunch of racists, or, at the very least, apologists for a bunch of racists.

So you're saying because you think it means something, that's what it means? And aren't stereotypes, by definition, not representative of the people they're applied to? If even historians, with their myriads of degrees, can't agree what the Civil War was primarily fought over, how can you unequivocally state it was fought over slavery, and the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery?

No, I'm saying that because that's what it means, that's what it means.

Fine, instead of "stereotype," pretend I used the word "generality." Happy?

And if you show me a historian who says that the Civil War wasn't fought primarily over slavery, I'll show you a man whose degree isn't worth the fucking paper it's printed on.

Again, no, it doesn't, the same way the swastika doesn't mean Nazi Germany.

And "generality" is just as crap as stereotype.

Yes, it does, the same way the Nazi flag does mean Nazi Germany. And I'm sorry, but defending the Confederate flag is a sign of, at best, ignorance, and at worst, bigotry.

You know what would help with this? Not defending people flying the Confederate flag. But when it comes up in here, and a bunch of otherwise rational people from the South get all up in arms over it, saying "oh, it's okay, it doesn't mean what you think it means," when I know goddamn well it means what I think it means, it just perpetuates the stereotype that you're a bunch of racists, or, at the very least, apologists for a bunch of racists.

So you're saying because you think it means something, that's what it means? And aren't stereotypes, by definition, not representative of the people they're applied to? If even historians, with their myriads of degrees, can't agree what the Civil War was primarily fought over, how can you unequivocally state it was fought over slavery, and the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery?

No, I'm saying that because that's what it means, that's what it means.

Fine, instead of "stereotype," pretend I used the word "generality." Happy?

And if you show me a historian who says that the Civil War wasn't fought primarily over slavery, I'll show you a man whose degree isn't worth the fucking paper it's printed on.

Again, no, it doesn't, the same way the swastika doesn't mean Nazi Germany.

And "generality" is just as crap as stereotype.

Yes, it does, the same way the Nazi flag does mean Nazi Germany. And I'm sorry, but defending the Confederate flag is a sign of, at best, ignorance, and at worst, bigotry.

And then of course you have Maryland, Delaware, and later Kentucky and Missouri - slave states all, and none Confederate. Heck

Most of those states also had few slaves. The number of slaves in Maryland was shrinking at the start of the Civil War. Delaware had 1,798 slaves in 1960. The exceptions are Missouri and Kentucky. Kentucky claimed that it was neutral and was invaded by both sides. Missouri was rather divided.

What's an acceptable amount of slavery? Slavery in the northern US was tiny compared to slavery in the southern US, which itself was tiny compared compared to slavery in the Caribbean.

Does this mean German states like Saarland and Westphalia get credit because they had less Holocaust than Bavaria?

I will say this, and this is coming from a guy who starting reading this thread, drove past a house or two with Confederate flags flying, and then finished it up. Living in South Carolina, everyone I've met who wears the shirts, drives the stickered vehicles, or flies the flag out front can most easily and fairly described as uneducated. I like to think this is not a generalization as I specify these are people I've come into contact with. They're idiots, just like any of you might run into in any of your local areas, but these guys are thoughtful enough to declare exactly where they're from.

To the Southerners: Why do you defend such people?
To the Northerners (and others): Such people are not indicative of the entire population.

Like Elki said, it's useful for racists to openly identify themselves, so that you know who and where they are. They're not going to turn into non-dipshits just because they put away their flags. And as MLK found out when he went to Chicago's Marquette Park, there are plenty of violent racists who don't fly the Confederate flag at all. In fact, King described the reaction of Chicago whites as more hostile and hateful than anything he had experienced in Selma, Birmingham, Atlanta, etc.

The overt racists you can see coming, and are fairly easily marginalized. It's the covert ones you have to be on the lookout for.

Again, no, it doesn't, the same way the swastika doesn't mean Nazi Germany.

And "generality" is just as crap as stereotype.

After twentysomething pages I get the distinct impression you have no idea what you're arguing about, and that you imagine you have scored some sort of rhetorical point since nobody has produced a mathematical equation proving that the confederate flag symbolizes thus-and-so.

And then of course you have Maryland, Delaware, and later Kentucky and Missouri - slave states all, and none Confederate. Heck

Most of those states also had few slaves. The number of slaves in Maryland was shrinking at the start of the Civil War. Delaware had 1,798 slaves in 1960. The exceptions are Missouri and Kentucky. Kentucky claimed that it was neutral and was invaded by both sides. Missouri was rather divided.

What's an acceptable amount of slavery? Slavery in the northern US was tiny compared to slavery in the southern US, which itself was tiny compared compared to slavery in the Caribbean.

Does this mean German states like Saarland and Westphalia get credit because they had less Holocaust than Bavaria?

It's unacceptable when you go to war explicitly to protect the institution of slavery. Period. That's the point at which it's unacceptable. And no, that's not to say it's okay that Delaware and Missouri had slaves; it's just saying that at least the people there didn't decide that it was worth 700,000 deaths to preserve it.

It seems to be partly over-sensitivity too. Generally speaking, the dumb country bumpkin stereotype isn't exclusive to the South. The southerner image was also influenced highly by media documenting the Civil Rights Movement in the south. I think this image is turning around slightly, but it's certainly not helped by the continued presence (albeit small) of the Klan, the embrace of good ol' boy/redneck culture, or the defiant defense of the Confederate flag/Confederacy. But then again, I'm a guy that doesn't think very highly of rural, insular cultures in general, whether it's in Alabama or North Dakota.

And then of course you have Maryland, Delaware, and later Kentucky and Missouri - slave states all, and none Confederate. Heck

Most of those states also had few slaves. The number of slaves in Maryland was shrinking at the start of the Civil War. Delaware had 1,798 slaves in 1960. The exceptions are Missouri and Kentucky. Kentucky claimed that it was neutral and was invaded by both sides. Missouri was rather divided.

What's an acceptable amount of slavery? Slavery in the northern US was tiny compared to slavery in the southern US, which itself was tiny compared compared to slavery in the Caribbean.

Does this mean German states like Saarland and Westphalia get credit because they had less Holocaust than Bavaria?

It's unacceptable when you go to war explicitly to protect the institution of slavery. Period. That's the point at which it's unacceptable. And no, that's not to say it's okay that Delaware and Missouri had slaves; it's just saying that at least the people there didn't decide that it was worth 700,000 deaths to preserve it.

That's pretty much where I'd draw the line. Militarization around maintaining the institution is much worse than practicing it until it was outlawed. Owning slaves wasn't a good thing to do, but killing to keep them is infinitely worse.

What's an acceptable amount of slavery? Slavery in the northern US was tiny compared to slavery in the southern US, which itself was tiny compared compared to slavery in the Caribbean.

Does this mean German states like Saarland and Westphalia get credit because they had less Holocaust than Bavaria?

Slavery was illegal in the Caribbean well before 1860.
German states like Saarland and Westphalia are not held accountable for the Holocaust no. Neither is Bavaria. Nazi German is. South Carolina is not blamed for the slaughter of Native Americans, the United States is.

Birmingham Alabama isn't held accountable for slavery, Alabama is. The national Confederate policy was eternal slavery supported by armed treason. Alabama chose to join the Confederacy and thus is also blamed for that.

When policy is determined at a national level the nation is blamed. When policy is at the state level, states are blamed. Its not that tough a concept

Again, no, it doesn't, the same way the swastika doesn't mean Nazi Germany.

And "generality" is just as crap as stereotype.

After twentysomething pages I get the distinct impression you have no idea what you're arguing about, and that you imagine you have scored some sort of rhetorical point since nobody has produced a mathematical equation proving that the confederate flag symbolizes thus-and-so.

The entire debate has been the equivalent of "nuh-uh!" "uh-huh!".

Tell me, do you have a problem with the Union Jack? Because that was flown over far more enslaved peoples than the Confederate flag (which isn't actually the "Confederate" flag in the first place, but a combination of the Confederate Navy Jack and the Confederate battle flag) ever was.

I have lived in both the north and south for long periods of time. There are a few things I think people forget.

Education is different in the north and south. A history lesson about the civil war will be DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT.

When I took a 300 level civil war course from Purdue Universities department of history. It was VERY pro union and cast the south as quite the aggressor and painted the confederacy in quite a negative light.

This same course taken at VMI had an almost 180 degree slant. The north were aggressors and the south were valiant homeland defenders. Now why does this happen. They are both using the same source material and I mean history does have facts. so how do we end up with two different stories?

Well part of the reason is that in the 40 years following the civil war. Especially in the south there was some serious revisionist history going on. When all the old soldiers started getting old and dying they wrote memoirs that while a version of actual events wasn't exactly the correct version. Some of these memoirs especially of southern generals became very popular in the south and lead to a perception that the north was pretty much dicks. (I mean they didn't like those guys anyway so this isn't much of a stretch.) They downplay the importance of slavery in their fighting and focus more on defending the homeland. When in actual history this had nothing to do with it. South Carolina left because Lincoln was elected and the only reason that bothered them is because he was an abolitionist. Not because he had invaded anything. (you recall the south actually started the shooting)

Now we take all that into account. And then we have this issue with the confederate flag. While I have lived in northern Florida for the better part of 3 years now and it has always confused me why people would so proudly display this flag. When most of the modern world considers it racist and ignorant. Yet they are so proud of it. I think I have finally figured it out.

Most of these people have grown up in small rural areas and have that flag shown to them from a young age as a symbol of freedom and independence. Its the rebel flag. They use to rebel against ANYTHING they don't like. Be it blacks, spinach, or homework. To them it is as normal as apple pie. Also racism was very institutionalized down here and in pretty much any southerner over the age of 40 they have a very different view of racism then anyone from up north does. They will loudly proclaim to not be racist and fly that flag on their truck proudly.

They just have a very different perspective then people from the north do. Mainly because of education and their family structure. And is not lack of education, don't think I am saying they are ignorant. That is not the case. Their education is just Different then up north. The facts DO get changed.

It at first kind of bothered me. Now I just laugh because they honestly think it is not offensive. And they could give a rats ass if you do. I have been called a damn yankee more times than I can count and i was born and raised in virginia the home of the confederacy...

Tell me, do you have a problem with the Union Jack? Because that was flown over far more enslaved peoples than the Confederate flag (which isn't actually the "Confederate" flag in the first place, but a combination of the Confederate Navy Jack and the Confederate battle flag) ever was.

The Union Jack means a million different things, because it flew over all sorts of different things. Slavery was part of it, and that sucked, yes, but it was also there at the liberation of France from the Germans. England is a country that has existed for a very, very long time.

The Confederate flag flew over a country that was established for the purpose of perpetuating slavery. It existed for four years, all four years of which were spent doing one thing: fighting a war to protect slavery. The fucking flag is synonymous with the enslavement of black people in the U.S. It doesn't mean anything else because there's nothing else there for it to mean. There is no conceivable thing it could represent other than that, much like the Nazi flag, and if you're flying it and you're not aware of that, you're a goddamn gibbering retard, and if you're flying it and you are aware of that, you're a fucking racist asshole.

They just have a very different perspective then people from the north do. Mainly because of education and their family structure. And is not lack of education, don't think I am saying they are ignorant. That is not the case. Their education is just Different then up north. The facts DO get changed.

If you have two different methods of educating your citizens and the facts differ between them, then at least one of them is actually propaganda.

This same course taken at VMI had an almost 180 degree slant. The north were aggressors and the south were valiant homeland defenders. Now why does this happen. They are both using the same source material and I mean history does have facts. so how do we end up with two different stories?

Virginia Military Institute had postive things to say about armed traitors?

They just have a very different perspective then people from the north do. Mainly because of education and their family structure. And is not lack of education, don't think I am saying they are ignorant. That is not the case. Their education is just Different then up north. The facts DO get changed.

If you have two different methods of educating your citizens and the facts differ between them, then at least one of them is actually propaganda.

This same course taken at VMI had an almost 180 degree slant. The north were aggressors and the south were valiant homeland defenders. Now why does this happen. They are both using the same source material and I mean history does have facts. so how do we end up with two different stories?

Virginia Military Institute had postive things to say about armed traitors?